Check out the poll here.
And so you don't think I'm spamming, you can either register and vote over there or post your comments here.

------------------
Pissed off?

They should get it. I'm an American, and I agree that the war in Iraq isn't in America's best interest (unless you count the oil that's in Iraq). Give them what they want, for few in the service now regret or will regret their decision, and few will want refugee status.

------------------
There is no signature

Just give'em dishonorable discharges. There wasn't a draft, they shouldn't be whining after voluntarily signing up for the military.

------------------
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"

There should be severe penalties to cowards that would flee to that pacifist nation as well as strong embargos emplaced on Canada if those deserters are not promptly deported.

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

[This message has been edited by Wookie06 (edited July 08, 2004).]

I say let them in. I don't see bush re-opening the beef trades anyways. If it's ever going to happen, kerry's gonna have to win the election first.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

Uh...cowards? They don't believe in the war, and there wasn't any hint at war when they joined up. Why should they be labelled cowards?

------------------
There is no signature

Who the hell signs up for the military NOT expecting to go to war? You're plain stupid if you do. Also I have stolen your soul by quoting you.

------------------
moo

Well, they voluntarily joined the military. Whether war was forseen or not, they should uphold their commitment. Its like signing a contract to work for someone, then quitting because you discover that you actually have to work. Its pretty dishonorable if you ask me. If they were so against war, they should not have joined up in the first place.


[This message has been edited by Plasma Man (edited July 08, 2004).]

So let me get this straight -- their argument boils down to "I disagree with what the government is telling me to do, therefore I am not going to do it"? Man, if they get away with it, I'll have to try that argument next time I get pulled over for speeding or other criminal offences...

------------------
Krig have signature.
Krig smash.

I highly doubt they signed up without knowing that they very well could get sent off to fight for and defend the countries (US) freedoms. They would have no problem if going off and fighting in that kind of war. In those types of wars (IE WWII), you have virtually the entire civilian population backing you, both morally and economically. In the cases of Vietnam and Iraq, you see far greater splits in the support for the war. In such cases, it's not uncommon nor dishonorable (IMO) for soldiers who put their life on the line to doubt what their doing is the right (by right, I mean both morally and ethically) thing to do.



Terrible attempt at an analogy.

Besides, there's two good reasons for a soldier to not be held to their legally binding agreement:

1) The government (is suppose to) work for the people, not rule (dictate) them. Meaning they are supposed to fulfill the will of the people and not simply go off and do their own thing. The way our government is currently set up (and will always be set up this way unless the people finally wise up and do something about it) is that they politicians are "suppose" to do what the people want, but they don't have to (this is wrong, especially since many of them accept money to vote against what the majority of the people want).

2) The government (namely the Bush Administration) lied about the reasons for going to war in the first place.

Unfortunately, the current enlistment documentation doesn't take these into consideration.

BTW, you all that are complaing about the enlisted men that are going AWOL because they don't believe in the war....well what about all of the commission officers (who are not strickly bounded by a contract) that resign their commissions due to the same reasons?

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

^^^THANK YOU.

Anyone who calls these men cowards is calling everyone who dodged Vietnam cowards. And it took a man of far more moral upstandings and far more courage than I to accept Vietnam's BS.

------------------
There is no signature

Except most who dodged Vietnam did not volunteer to fight any potential conflict and were not receiving benefits during peace time.


------------------
Roach - Caught in the war of hemispheres.
0 of 14.

You got me. But it's still immoral.

------------------
There is no signature

Enlisted men sign up for X amount of years. Officers are signed up until the day they die. If the government wants to call you back into the military, it doesn't matter how long you've been out if you were an officer. Kind of like an indefinite inactive reserve. So those officers that resign can theoretically be recalled and (correct me if I'm wrong) a resignation has to be approved by a superior of some sort.

Also, resigning and running away to another country are two different things.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited July 08, 2004).]

Canada's screwed no matter what they do, which is why they should just get it over with and join the U.S. If they allow the deserters in, the U.S. will likely penalize Canada a lot more than simply destroying their beef economy. Canadians don't realize how fragile they are. One flip of the wrist and Bush could destroy Canada economically.

It's in Canada's best interest to kick them out.

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

Unfortunately, he's right. Hopefully it won't be resolved until (if) Kerry gets into office (please god let it happen). He'd probably be a lot less harsh than Bush.

Don't turn this into a political debate btw. There's already a thread for that.

------------------
There is no signature

If Canada gets the snub from the US... ya...


------------------
free mp3 ~Jump - Young America

new album Between the Dim and the Dark available now

[This message has been edited by Schming (edited July 08, 2004).]

If you join the military and get shipped off to war and you don't like it, I'm sorry, but I feel no pitty for you. You signed up knowing full well that you could have to put your life on hte line. That's part of the deal. They should be charged with disertion and locked up like anyone else who walks away from their duty

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Only up to 20 years. If you resign your put on reserve. When your 20 years are up, you have the option to retire.

They can be approved by anyone who holds a higher rank than yourself....so it's not that difficult to have it approved.



Going to Canada and other countries are exactly what they are doing when they resign. If the military can't find you, they can't drag you back...

And please, they arn't "running away", that implies they are afraid of something. They are "getting away" from a corrupt system (government). Big difference.

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

But, ya see, there's a little flaw in that reasoning. People tend to not mind joining in on something that is justified. When they are forced to participate in something unjustified that is wrong. When people join the military, they are joinging to a) secure the safety of the civilians and this government and b) to fight in justified wars for this country. It is morally and ethically wrong to force these men and women to fight in an unjustified (or politically slanted) war simply on a whim by the US government (even worse when surrounded in lies).

I say it takes much courage and sacrifice on their part to do what they are doing and I, for one, would most certainly appluad any country giving refuge to these men and women who are truly standing up for what they believe in.

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

I don't think Bush would want to destroy Canada economically, considering Canada is the US's number one trading partner and number one consumer of american goods. If you **** with that, all of a sudden you've got a few trillion dollars less revenue in your country and a whole ****load of pissed off businessmen.

Canada has always accepted refuges from foreign countries who feel they are being mistreated or oppressed. Why is this any different? These people are being forced to fight a war that they want no part in. I think a better anology would be a person who joins a football team, only to shortly thereafter be reassigned to cricket. They signed up to play football (defend America), and they got transfered to something completely different (the selfish ambitions of a crooked government).

------------------
Juztyn
Taking credit for: Canyon Stream, Higher Ground, The Space Between, Death's Dome (mlp3), bits of JKRPG, and the entire Showcase forum, damnit!... Visit SWGalaxies.net for the latest Star Wars: Galaxies information!

Canada should treat them the same as any other asylum seeker.

Well they DID close down the beef trades, and now they're overcharging their population for it.

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

If Canada closed the borders going into the US for just one day, the US would lose billions in thier economy (I heard that on the CBC).


------------------
Pissed off?

Everyone is saying Bush this Bush that. Stop with ALL the bullish man. Cheney. Yuo know got da** well that Bush don't know ish and lets Rice, Powell, Cheney, and his other advisors do the nitty gritty.

------------------
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone.- Bill Cosby

what's so bad about getting re-assigned to cricket?

2 for 370 baby, go langer and marto

COWARDS COWARDS COWARDS COWARDS COWARDS

I give a damn if they agree with the Iraq war. They VOLUNTARILY joined the military. No one put a gun to their heads and made them join. They took the same oath I took. And, like me, they signed a contract with the government, saying they would serve for a certain length of time. They are LEGALLY obligated to go.

Who cares if public support for the war is split? That has nothing to do with performing your DUTY. You are a soldier. You HAVE to fulfill any LAWFUL order you are given. Now, if these COWARDS can prove that the orders sending them to Iraq were illegal, then they're fine. But, they can't. And now, because they ran away and hid, others are going to have to leave their families and go fight, and possibly get killed. It's unfair and dishonorable.



ROFL! Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you actually had a credible point. Basically, your whole argument revolves around how you think the war in Iraq is wrong, so they shouldn't have to go. Guess what? Over half the population would disagree with you. So, therefore, it is a justified war and they should have to go.

But the thing you said that nearly made me die laughing was this classic line: "It is morally and ethically wrong to force these men and women to fight in an unjustified (or politically slanted) war simply on a whim by the US government (even worse when surrounded in lies)."

Simply on a whim by the US govt.??!!! I'm going to let you in on a little secret....the MILITARY is COMMANDED by the US GOVERNMENT! They are our superiors, we serve them. Of course you have to go if they say so, that's the whole point of what the founding fathers wanted when they made the military subordinate to the civilian government! Your point makes no sense.

[This message has been edited by Mister_Sinister (edited July 09, 2004).]

HAHAHAHAha..ha...no.

Just because the man isn't coherent enough to give a speech doesn't mean he isn't smart enough to be our President. Quite the opposite. Bush is more than intelligent enough to be our President, whether he's corrupt or not...well...

Bush probably won't do it. But there's always that slim, slim chance.

------------------
There is no signature

Not even gonna start on the mass of idiocy that portrays.

------------------
There is no signature

I've already addressed this. The contract left no room for government error in judgement. Most all buisness contracts have a clause that allows people to get out of the contract if one or the other does something morally or ethically wrong (lying falls under the ethically wrong catagory).



They can't prove it's illigal because it isn't illigal to lie. This is how the government traps the men and women of our armed forces into the service.



Only a slight margin of a majority:
www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/30/sprj.irq.iraq.poll/

And from the polls, you can clearly see how simply being informed, the population has drastically changed their views on the War back from when they were ignorant of all the things the government wasn't telling us.

So, to simplify this for you, people are ignorant (of foreign matters in particular). The government likes to keep it this way as it allows them to easily convince the public to support something they hardly know anything about. For more information on this, talk to any economist. The whole reason we have a Federal Reserve now is because we simply can't trust politcians.

[edit]Oh yeah, and let's not forget this either:
"The public overwhelmingly thinks that the war in Iraq is making the U.S.’s image in the Arab world worse. Only 6 percent think the war’s result has improved the U.S.’s imag"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/12/opinion/polls/main617087.shtml



Our founding fathers assumed the government wouldn't lie to the American people in order to justify an unjust war. So this point holds no ground what-so-ever.

If the US government had better checks and balances, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

[This message has been edited by CaptBewil (edited July 09, 2004).]

I don't know about these lot, but the vast majority of the US army is made up of those in poverty. For them, joining the army isn't so much a choice as a necessity, or at least an extremely luctrative option, providing food and housing and a salary without requiring any qualifications whatsoever.

They're not joining the army to "protect their country" or anything like that, I don't suppose patriotism is all that high with the working classes, joining the army is the only way they're going to get any money to live.

I just figured that ought to be something to consider.

Also, I don't think the American public are really the authority on whether the Iraq invasion was 'justified' or not. If anything, it ought to be a combination of the Iraqi population and Coalition population. Or just the Iraqi population (of which 81% still consider the US as an occupying force, and approximately half say that killing American troops is justified some of the time. In Baghdad, 13% see the invasion as morally justified).

The only real authority to judge the invasion is the UN, which would deem the invasion as illegal.

Perhaps some sort of clause could be added giving soldiers the option to refuse if the action does not have UN support.

Mort, what are you talking about? Where do you get this info. (about people that join the Army are in poverty)? Because that's absolute garbage. Most people join because they either need college money, a career opportunity, or both. Yes, some do join out of poverty, but not that many. I know this because I'm IN the ARMY.

And I couldn't care less if the UN deems it legal or not. They have no problem when a govt. in Africa goes on an ethnic-cleansing spree, but when an Eastern-European country does it, oh nos! This is terrible, it must be stopped! They only care when it's on their doorstep, but when it's no where near them....who cares. Two faced hypocrites.

And Bewil, you're missing the key point. THEY HAVE NO SAY IN THE MATTER! WHETHER THEY DISAGREE WITH THE WAR DOESNT MATTER!

Personally, I say let them run. The military is better off without them. I'd much rather have someone that will do his job whether or not he agrees with a war in a foxhole next to me, rather that someone who will quit because he doesn't agree with a war. In the Army, we call people like that blue falcons, which is another way of saying buddy *******. Which is exactly what they're doing.

Also, if the Iraqi people don't want us there, then we should just leave. Then, we'll see how they feel about us when another tyrant takes over and starts murdering his people.

Ya know with Vietnam, alot of them didn't want to go but were forced to. So they went without a fight and alot of them died. If you're gonna sign up for the military, then you better be prepared to face your responsibility you're signing up for.

I would guess they just signed up for benefeits that were probably paying their college.

------------------
"We came, we saw, we conquered, we...woke up!"

Then they shouldn't have joined up in the first place. This is nothing more than a cop out. Trying to weasle their way out of their responsibility. I'd feel diferently if they had a gun pointed at their head when they signed on the doted line, but they didn't. This is just another example of people failing to take responsibility for their actions.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

What about the gun pointed at them in Iraq?

Why should the American people go fight a war in Iraq that's pretty much already over? Al Qaeda's fairly disbanded, the only government set up to take over is a nice, "american", semi-democratic one, and Iraq can pretty much take care of themselves. Iraq as a war wasn't justified before. The purpose of the army is to protect the nation. The purpose of the U.N. is to intervene on nations such as Iraq. I still think the Afghani war was justified, because if we didn't act, then we would be subject to another attack. But there was the slightest hint of Iraq maybe having WMDs. So we went in. And we didn't find any for what, 2 full years? How is that for justified? And all we found was a bit of enriched uranium, no chemical or biological warfare materials. It isn't even proven they had the means to use this uranium. Woop-dee-doo.

------------------
There is no signature

I'm not saying people want to go into combat and die. No one in their right mind does, but having a gun pointed at you in Iraq, or any other country for that is part of the deal when you join.

Yoshi, you can argue that the morallity of the war or whether it's justified all you want, but that has little bearing on whether people who join the military are obligated to go fight when they are told to fight. It's very simple. You joined the armed forces, you sign a piece of paper that says you are obligated todo what the military wants you to do until you are discharged. There is no clause that says you are joining the military just for the career opportunity and the college money but that you don't have to go fight if you don't feel like it.

Again, people are just trying to weasle their way out of their responsibilities because they weren't smart enough to realize that they might get shot at at some point in their military career. And if you think that the US military is only around to defend the country you relly need to do a little research before you join up

That's a general "you" up there. Not directed at anyone specific.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

That's the key. If the were drafted, that's another story, but they weren't. The military is not a "free ride" where you get everything paid for and fed and sheltered and then if you don't "feel like fighting" you don't have to.


[Edit: Blast! Avennnggggerrrrrr!!!!]
------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

[This message has been edited by BobTheMasher (edited July 09, 2004).]

This is what it always boils down to, morality vs. legality. Our forefathers wanted a mixture of both. Now it's all whether or not we should side with one or the other. This is why I say America needs to change drastically, everything relies too much on legality and not enough on morality.

------------------
There is no signature

Are you crazy? There's no way in hell the US could do that because guess what, the United States are incredibly dependant on Canada, just as Canada is dependant on them. That would be one of the WORST moves the US could pull...